Just looking at all the gadgets running on free OS, I really think there is no place for priced embedded OS. Embedded systems doesn't really need windows GUI, app models, and etc. I really see no reason why a cheap toy manufacture would spend time on license while the free one removes all that pricy and time consuming process.

Just looking at all the gadgets running on free OS, I really think there is no place for priced embedded OS. Embedded systems doesn't really need windows GUI, app models, and etc. I really see no reason why a cheap toy manufacture would spend time on license while the free one removes all that pricy and time consuming process.

@magicalclick: I would be very surprised that Microsoft would let go the market of gadgets, but I have not heard much about the .net micro framework and the Windows CE strategy. Maybe this is a good place to ask?

It has its place for sure. Businesses have to build systems that include hardware that must run and transition over durations measured in decades in some cases. Basing that on some free OS that may or may not be run by an organization that has skin in the game doesn't sound like a good start to a possibly decade long relationship.

@davewill: I think to be relevant a OS must not be only business oriented. Once Steve B. said that cool starts with consumer and I think there is much true in that statement. I think Microsoft needs to have a clear strategy for its own embedded OS, but is making it free the answer?

i.e. if I were Micrfosoft I would invest a lot in products like NetDuino...

@davewill: I think to be relevant a OS must not be only business oriented. Once Steve B. said that cool starts with consumer and I think there is much true in that statement. I think Microsoft needs to have a clear strategy for its own embedded OS, but is making it free the answer?

i.e. if I were Micrfosoft I would invest a lot in products like NetDuino...

Most consumers don't think about the OS when using an embedded system because most embedded systems are either headless (e.g. a fridge) or use a custom non-minizable UI that obscures any of the branding of the OS (e.g. a car or ATM).

Since the branding is obscured, people hate or loving the device doesn't translate into any brand improvement for Microsoft, so why would they sell it for free? No normal consumers buy embedded OSes directly, so making it consumer orientated seems like a waste of time.

@evildictaitor: I think it depends on the definition of consumer. In your sense you are absolutely right, but I was considering developers and amateur programmers as consumers in this particular scenario. I think that if Microsoft grows on them with projects like NetDuino, it will ensure make an army of developers that will develop more projects with its technologies.

@giovanni: and I would say, OEM is always the major consumer for Microsoft. It is important to have good end user reputation to convince OEM to keep using Microsoft solutions, but, in the end, OEM is the real customers.

It's not just cost. It's the freedom to not be forever tied to a properitary vendor's licenses and changing business model.

The changing licences is a problem for FOSS too - if a FOSS project you rely on goes from LGPL to GPL that can make a difference to whether some companies can use it.

If you want to keep your system secure, you'll need to have a plan to update all of the stack beneath you for security upgrades as well (whether that's Windows or Linux or whatever), and so you're not immune with any vendor from changes of direction, or licences by the technology teams beneath you.

The fact is that unless you build the entire technology stack beneath you, your business is partially dependent on someone else, and that can come back and hurt you whether you're dealing with a small company, a big company or an open-source community.

If you want to keep your system secure, you'll need to have a plan to update all of the stack beneath you

*snip*

Additively regarding proprietary vendor's changing business model, forking of parts of the stack by FOSSees is impactful in the same way. Yet there doesn't seem to be a high bar limiting forking like there is for a changing business model.

Additively regarding proprietary vendor's changing business model, forking of parts of the stack by FOSSees is impactful in the same way. Yet there doesn't seem to be a high bar limiting forking like there is for a changing business model.

FOSS works a bit like evolution, survival of the fittest applies. If something is forked and the fork wins over the original, there is probably a good reason for it (ie. the original developers had a flawed approach that was untenable). That's one of the great things actually, with FOSS you can challenge the original developers and make improvements that they might not agree with.

There is actually a very influential book by Eric Raymond called the "Cathedral and the Bazaar" that goes into much greater detail on this sort of thing, better than I can.

Thread Closed

This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation,
please create a new thread in our Forums, or
Contact Us and let us know.